BF2S Forums Supreme Court of the US to hear 2nd Amendment Case

FEOS wrote:

A thought just occurred to me: Why the hell do non-Americans give a crap about American gun laws?!

Perhaps some non-Americans can throw up some of their laws and those of us who don't live there and are totally unaffected by their laws could debate them. Maybe offer up changing the foundational documents of their governments for them?

I guess some people just care about the welfare of all people. Not just the ones they share nationality with.

B.Schuss wrote:

the most bullshit argument, if you ask me. Where were you when Bush signed the patriot act ?

Garbage.  Armed revolution is the last resort of a subjugated population.  While I won't even attempt an argument that the Bush administration (and Clinton, for that matter) hasn't put into place policies (with the complicity of Congress -- it's not just Bush to blame) that are restrictive of civil liberties, those policies are far short of justification (in my view) for taking up arms against the government.  If he suspends elections in a year, then come talk to me.

I don't think adressing this issue by analyzing the semantics of the 2nd Amendment is fair. The Bill of rights and the constitution were written under specific historic circumstances. It is the language and way of thinking of the late 18th century that is imprinted in it, and to argue that these words would mean the exact same thing today than they meant back then is just absurd. I mean, this is not 1789 any more. Times have changed.

Of course times have changed.  The words of the Constitution, however, haven't save 27 specific changes, none relating to the right to bear arms.  If times really have changed to the extent that the second amendment needs restructuring or outright repeal, the supporters of such a reform can make their case for an amendment to the American people and see where it goes.

This argument of yours is one of the most dangerous I hear regarding the meaning of the Constitution.  I often hear it used to dismiss the second amendment, but it's also applied by some to justify their vision of how the Constitution as a whole should be instead of how it is.  The excuse given is the same as yours, that two hundred years of societal evolution demand a different set of ground rules for government structure so we have to redefine the meaning of the Constitution in situ, without undertaking the drudgery and uncertainty of proposing amendments.  While it may well be true that the Constitution is outdated and in need of change, the fact remains there is already a mechanism for making such changes built into the document.

The dangerous part of your argument comes into play when we realize that if the meaning of the words can be changed on a whim, then the words have no real meaning at all.  We can apply your logic regarding the second amendment to the first amendment (for example) just as easily.  Times have changed with regard to communications (speech) in the last two hundred years, comparatively speaking it has probably outpaced the advancement in personal weapons technology.  Using your architecture of proper constitutional interpretation, it would be perfectly legitimate to exclude from first amendment protection anything beyond the quill and printing press.  Or hey, times have changed, right?  Maybe we don't even need any first amendment protections anymore so we can just disregard the whole thing.  We don't need to bother with the consent of the people via state ratification of an amendment repealing it, because we can just say "times have changed" and use that as justification.  What's that?  People are pissed off about being denied their first amendment (former) rights?  No big deal, because we've already dismissed the second amendment as obsolete due to "changing times" and there's nothing they can do about it.

For once, the US has no well-regulated militia. The US has a standing, professional Army. Militias are a thing of the past, in times when young nations didn't have the means to muster a professional army. The idea that people should keep military style weapons at home, in case the regular army fails to defend the nation, is ridiculous, compared to the strength of todays Armed Forces in the US.

Regardless of how advanced our professional army becomes, it remains impossible for them to instantly mobilize to any specific location in the nation in response to a threat.  Nationwide decentralized military might is just as important as concentrated centers of large-scale operations.  Even ignoring the advantages of dispersed power, the fact is that our military is very extended overseas, and this isn't an issue that dawned with the invasion of Iraq.  The United States has military operations all over the globe.  For example, on 9/11/01 there were 14 military fighters on alert to respond to any threat across the entire nation.  Compare that to the number of deployed aircraft and airmen on that date.  I don't know that number, but the idea that there were fewer than 14 aircrews operating that day, projecting our global reach, is laughable.

This could certainly be an argument for standing down our military posture overseas, but I sincerely doubt such a standdown would lead to any substantial increase in on-alert aircraft or 24/7 battle-ready units, given the relatively low risk of ground assault.  Nevertheless, there remains a non-zero risk of a ground invasion somewhere in the United States.  Until the military can get itself called up and deployed to that location, it is left to the local citizens (the unorganized militia, designated by federal law) to hold the line until help arrives.

Second argument: protection against a possibly totalitarian government. Yeah, right. Maybe democracy was weak and not well established in 1789, but I think it is fair to say that it has developped well since then. And if the patriot act won't make people want to overthrow the government, I don't know what would. The US is in no danger of turning into a dictatorship, and you very well know that.

It may not be now, but who knows what future tyrannies we will elect?  In addition, the use of firearms has in recent history been used in the United States to suppress tyranny and restore rule of law.

All you gun-loving people are looking for is a reason to be allowed to keep your precious guns, so you can continue to fire at the next best person to step on your lawn.

The fatal flaw with this made-up justification is this: it just doesn't happen with enough frequency.  If this were really the reason we wanted to keep our firearms, I can't help but think bodies would be piling up on every third or fourth house lawn.

But you were probably just being snarky.

Fine with me, really. But to quote a law from 1789, that was written with a totally different intention and under totally different historic circumstances, is just insane.

There's (another) problem with your logic in this statement.  The second amendment was contained within the larger Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights granted by the government, but an affirmation of rights inherent in each individual by virtue of his simple existence.  To suggest that certain rights enshrined in any of the first ten amendments could ever become obsolete is to ignore the foundation of our system of government: that Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights.

It is possible to stop criminals from aquiring guns. You simply have to have the will to do what it takes to achieve that.

Prithee, for argument's sake, enlighten us as to the proper steps to take in order to purge guns from our criminal element, keeping in mind that a simple prohibition hasn't worked so hot for drugs and liquor and prostitution and gambling and sodomy and...

HollisHurlbut wrote:

This argument of yours is one of the most dangerous I hear regarding the meaning of the Constitution.  I often hear it used to dismiss the second amendment, but it's also applied by some to justify their vision of how the Constitution as a whole should be instead of how it is.  The excuse given is the same as yours, that two hundred years of societal evolution demand a different set of ground rules for government structure so we have to redefine the meaning of the Constitution in situ, without undertaking the drudgery and uncertainty of proposing amendments.  While it may well be true that the Constitution is outdated and in need of change, the fact remains there is already a mechanism for making such changes built into the document.

The dangerous part of your argument comes into play when we realize that if the meaning of the words can be changed on a whim, then the words have no real meaning at all.  We can apply your logic regarding the second amendment to the first amendment (for example) just as easily.  Times have changed with regard to communications (speech) in the last two hundred years, comparatively speaking it has probably outpaced the advancement in personal weapons technology.  Using your architecture of proper constitutional interpretation, it would be perfectly legitimate to exclude from first amendment protection anything beyond the quill and printing press.  Or hey, times have changed, right?  Maybe we don't even need any first amendment protections anymore so we can just disregard the whole thing.  We don't need to bother with the consent of the people via state ratification of an amendment repealing it, because we can just say "times have changed" and use that as justification.  What's that?  People are pissed off about being denied their first amendment (former) rights?  No big deal, because we've already dismissed the second amendment as obsolete due to "changing times" and there's nothing they can do about it.

with all seriousness, Hollis, all the courts ever do is interprete the words of the constitution and the bill of rights.
Why ? Because unfortunately, we have none of the founding fathers here with us to tell us what exactly the specific articles mean with regard to today's society.
And even if we did, are you so sure that he - knowing what we know today - would formulate them in exactly the same way than he did in 1789 ?
Even if you may think so, there is no fixed, forever-valid meaning of the words of the constitution.
I agree that some articles are basic provisions that should never be questioned, but others must be open to discussion and change. I appreciate when people know where they're coming from. But sometimes looking back prevents one from moving forward.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Regardless of how advanced our professional army becomes, it remains impossible for them to instantly mobilize to any specific location in the nation in response to a threat.  Nationwide decentralized military might is just as important as concentrated centers of large-scale operations.  Even ignoring the advantages of dispersed power, the fact is that our military is very extended overseas, and this isn't an issue that dawned with the invasion of Iraq.  The United States has military operations all over the globe.  For example, on 9/11/01 there were 14 military fighters on alert to respond to any threat across the entire nation.  Compare that to the number of deployed aircraft and airmen on that date.  I don't know that number, but the idea that there were fewer than 14 aircrews operating that day, projecting our global reach, is laughable.

This could certainly be an argument for standing down our military posture overseas, but I sincerely doubt such a standdown would lead to any substantial increase in on-alert aircraft or 24/7 battle-ready units, given the relatively low risk of ground assault.  Nevertheless, there remains a non-zero risk of a ground invasion somewhere in the United States.  Until the military can get itself called up and deployed to that location, it is left to the local citizens (the unorganized militia, designated by federal law) to hold the line until help arrives.

in all seriousness, Hollis, tell me one nation, or group of nations, that currently has or will soon possess the economic, logistic, and military capabilities to launch a full-scale invasion on the US mainland. Furthermore, convince me that such a nation or group of nations not only exists, but that it has the capabilities to launch such an attack on such short notice, that it would catch the US intelligence community and the armed forces by surprise. Let alone the rest of the world.
Come on, give it a try. Who is the big bad enemy your militias shall fight ?
You'll excuse the irony here...

HollisHurlbut wrote:

It may not be now, but who knows what future tyrannies we will elect?  In addition, the use of firearms has in recent history been used in the United States to suppress tyranny and restore rule of law.

ah, the battle of Athens, he. I also did some reading up on this issue. Not everyone was in support of the GI veterans, it seems:

"There is a warning for all of us in the occurrence...and above all a warning for the veterans of McMinn County, who also violated a fundamental principle of democracy when they arrogated to themselves the right of law enforcement for which they had no election mandate. Corruption, when and where it exists, demands reform, and even in the most corrupt and boss-ridden communities there are peaceful means by which reform can be achieved. But there is no substitute, in a democracy, for orderly process." (NYT, 3 Aug 1946, p. 14.)

HollisHurlbut wrote:

The fatal flaw with this made-up justification is this: it just doesn't happen with enough frequency.  If this were really the reason we wanted to keep our firearms, I can't help but think bodies would be piling up on every third or fourth house lawn.

But you were probably just being snarky.

ok, maybe I was being snarky. But let me ask you this: Why is it, that compared to other western nations, the US has such a high rate of gun related crime ? Why are there so many guns in circulation ? What is it - according to your own opinion - that americans love so much about their guns ? arguments please, not constitutional references

HollisHurlbut wrote:

There's (another) problem with your logic in this statement.  The second amendment was contained within the larger Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights granted by the government, but an affirmation of rights inherent in each individual by virtue of his simple existence.  To suggest that certain rights enshrined in any of the first ten amendments could ever become obsolete is to ignore the foundation of our system of government: that Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights.

ah, and at this point we finally reach the core of the issue: religion. Let me get this straight: you are honestly saying, that the articles of the constitution were sent down from god to the founding fathers as some form of revised ten commandments ?
I am sorry, but that is simply not true. As far as I know, your constitution was written by humans. Intellectual, maybe. Wise, surely. But still humans. It represents their opinion about what they thought would be a good constitution for the newly founded US. Those "inalienable rights" are their perception of what they thought basic human rights would be.
They made some good choices, I'll give you that, but they were still human, and thus not free from error.
I ask you, how can you question my logic, when your argument is based on religious beliefs ?


As far as your last point is concerned, I'll gladly line out my approach to proper gun control. But not tonight. I spent too much time in front of the PC already.

Fuckin communists...

HollisHurlbut wrote:

Regardless of how advanced our professional army becomes, it remains impossible for them to instantly mobilize to any specific location in the nation in response to a threat.  Nationwide decentralized military might is just as important as concentrated centers of large-scale operations.  Even ignoring the advantages of dispersed power, the fact is that our military is very extended overseas, and this isn't an issue that dawned with the invasion of Iraq.  The United States has military operations all over the globe.  For example, on 9/11/01 there were 14 military fighters on alert to respond to any threat across the entire nation.  Compare that to the number of deployed aircraft and airmen on that date.  I don't know that number, but the idea that there were fewer than 14 aircrews operating that day, projecting our global reach, is laughable.

B.Schuss wrote:

This could certainly be an argument for standing down our military posture overseas, but I sincerely doubt such a standdown would lead to any substantial increase in on-alert aircraft or 24/7 battle-ready units, given the relatively low risk of ground assault.  Nevertheless, there remains a non-zero risk of a ground invasion somewhere in the United States.  Until the military can get itself called up and deployed to that location, it is left to the local citizens (the unorganized militia, designated by federal law) to hold the line until help arrives.

in all seriousness, Hollis, tell me one nation, or group of nations, that currently has or will soon possess the economic, logistic, and military capabilities to launch a full-scale invasion on the US mainland. Furthermore, convince me that such a nation or group of nations not only exists, but that it has the capabilities to launch such an attack on such short notice, that it would catch the US intelligence community and the armed forces by surprise. Let alone the rest of the world.
Come on, give it a try. Who is the big bad enemy your militias shall fight ?
You'll excuse the irony here...

What if the enemy is already in the country? examlpe: Terror cells. or a radical group of fundamentalists who are planning to attack.

Last edited by Sgt.Gene (2007-11-29 12:33:00)

RAIMIUS wrote:

Sure, we could eliminate guns, but we would be forced to live in a Police state to do it!

Banning guns has worked soooo well in Britain. 
Banning guns in (parts?) of Australia didn't work so well either (violent crime increased significantly in the stats I heard).

Not sure about Australia, but in Britain our gun crime rate is massively smaller than that of America. Looking at the crimes that make up the gun crime, in America the most used firearm is the handgun followed by (if i recal correctly) the shotgun, in the UK it's an air rifle, followed by the hand gun then the replica gun. Here is the list of gun massacres that have occured in Britain since firearms were banned.



Oh I forgot, there haven't been any.

To put it another way, In the UK there are roughly 70 homicides by gun per year. In the US there are about 10,000. If Britain had the same number of people as America we would have 350 a year.

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A thought just occurred to me: Why the hell do non-Americans give a crap about American gun laws?!

Perhaps some non-Americans can throw up some of their laws and those of us who don't live there and are totally unaffected by their laws could debate them. Maybe offer up changing the foundational documents of their governments for them?

I guess some people just care about the welfare of all people. Not just the ones they share nationality with.

This has nothing to do with the welfare of all people. It has everything to do with people who aren't from the US applying their country's/culture's morals on our country/culture.

People wouldn't be citing gun crime statistics if they cared about their own morals more than the welfare of others.

FEOS wrote:

The Constitution is our country's founding document. Do you see Americans saying the UK, or Australia, or Germany, or Belgium, or <insert country name here> need to change the fundamental principles of their governments simply because we have an opinion (often under-informed) on their domestic situation?

I'll answer for you: No.

I guess you've missed everything about Venezuela on the news lately.

FEOS wrote:

It seems the rest of the world has an opinion about everything America does, domestically or internationally.

I can see someone outside of the US caring about what our government does WRT foreign policy. But our domestic policy? Seriously? Get your own domestic feces co-located before you start chucking spears at us.

It's a topic of debate, and we're on a debate forum. People, more often than not American, choose to start threads to debate US domestic policy. Do you really expect non-US citizens to stay out of the debate? That's not what this forum is for.

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Constitution is our country's founding document. Do you see Americans saying the UK, or Australia, or Germany, or Belgium, or <insert country name here> need to change the fundamental principles of their governments simply because we have an opinion (often under-informed) on their domestic situation?

I'll answer for you: No.

I guess you've missed everything about Venezuela on the news lately.

If there was news about the US saying the foundational documents of the Venezuelan government needed to be changed, then you're right...I missed that. Chavez is trying to change those foundational documents to allow him to be Dictator for Life. That affects more than just Venezuela. I would expect the same scrutiny if the US were doing the same thing (which, of course, we're not).

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It seems the rest of the world has an opinion about everything America does, domestically or internationally.

I can see someone outside of the US caring about what our government does WRT foreign policy. But our domestic policy? Seriously? Get your own domestic feces co-located before you start chucking spears at us.

It's a topic of debate, and we're on a debate forum. People, more often than not American, choose to start threads to debate US domestic policy. Do you really expect non-US citizens to stay out of the debate? That's not what this forum is for.

I realize all that Mikkel. I just can't for the life of me comprehend how someone who doesn't live here thinks they can speak authoritatively about how our government works and how we live our lives. Statistics and news reports do not capture the way things really are. Foreigners read a report from some group that supports their own under-informed (because they haven't lived here) view, then spout them off here as the way things really are. Then when people who actually live here attempt to either set the record straight or put the information provided into the proper context, we are told we can't possibly speak for anyone other than ourselves. Yet people who have no first-hand knowledge of life in the US somehow have the ability to speak in broad-brush terms about life here based on what they've read...as opposed to what others have actually experienced.

I mean, for crying out loud...on this thread alone we've got people from Europe telling us what our Bill of Rights really says and what was really intended back when it was written! How ludicrous is that?!

If I had an opinion on UK domestic policy and someone from the UK said that things weren't really that way, I would listen. Because they are the lay experts here on their government and the context in which their laws are enforced. I wouldn't sit here and tell them that their law really meant something else...that is utter arrogance and ethnocentrism.

Needless to say, it gets a bit frustrating.

Hey all First post ever

Its cool that the USSC is going to hear this case. The way I read the 2nd amendment is that it provides the people with the right to gather into militias and bear arms - private militias with military hardware stuff. The purpose of the amendment is to protect against the tyranny of government. But the 2nd amendment is more ordinarily interpreted to mean private ownership of more civilian type firearms -for gun nuts like me.

What do I think will happen?
I think the truer interpretation of the 2nd amendment of having roving squads of private militia roaming the streets like a bf2 squad in a jeep should be scarier to governments than having people own guns privately in their own homes and when the court realizes this, the court will probably try to duck the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment question entirely and just strike down the Washington DC law.

Besides we need the guns to protect ourselves in our own homes because the cops never show up in time to save you. I don't know if home invasions are a problem in other countries but here in the US you really do need a gun to protect your family from all the crackheads especially in Wash DC. I remember a girl who went missing from my school when she was in DC... the cops went to dredge a lake by DC they didn't find her but they found an anonymous dead male. Yah?! scary huh.

shoot first ask later.

Y'all don't mess with my guns.

PureFodder wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Sure, we could eliminate guns, but we would be forced to live in a Police state to do it!

Banning guns has worked soooo well in Britain. 
Banning guns in (parts?) of Australia didn't work so well either (violent crime increased significantly in the stats I heard).

Not sure about Australia, but in Britain our gun crime rate is massively smaller than that of America. Looking at the crimes that make up the gun crime, in America the most used firearm is the handgun followed by (if i recal correctly) the shotgun, in the UK it's an air rifle, followed by the hand gun then the replica gun. Here is the list of gun massacres that have occured in Britain since firearms were banned.



Oh I forgot, there haven't been any.

To put it another way, In the UK there are roughly 70 homicides by gun per year. In the US there are about 10,000. If Britain had the same number of people as America we would have 350 a year.

Realize that America has millions of legal guns, while Britain has how many?  You should include all violent crime, as (IIRC) knife attacks are MUCH more common in the UK. 

It still is not very applicable.  The US HAS the 2nd Amendment to protect citizens rights.  The debate here is whether the Constitution is being broken, NOT whether it should exist!  Those who advocate rewriting the Bill of Rights are essentially arguing that the Constitution has become outdated and that the US should re-form (as in re-create, not slightly alter) our entire government.  While you can argue that, I don't think you will find much support among those who decide things like this (Americans).

Should I (a US citizen) tell the British that they should throw out the Magna Carta because it is an old document?  Should I tell them that their basis for government is flawed for their contry (especially since I have never even been there)?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-11-30 00:30:53)

I don't object to those who have studied US laws (especially Constitutional law, in this case) and US history and culture to come to their conclusions.  There are many foreigners who have a better understanding of US history, culture, and law than many US students.  While I find that embarasing, I don't want an ill-informed high school level debate.  (I've seen plenty of those, and they are rarely well supported or logical.)  If there are foreigners who want to argue researched arguments in the context of this American case, as there are, I will gladly listen.

Many of the arguments here are based on what I percieve to be foreign history and culture applied to the American legal system.  That doesn't work well.

I would love to argue the merits of the UK gun ban from a libertarian and statistical view, however I do not have the proper knowledge of the UK legal system, culture or history to make an all-around compelling argument at this time.  Therefore, I will generally not engage in a comprehensive debate on that topic.


*edit: Grammar

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-11-30 00:41:22)

FEOS wrote:

....I mean, for crying out loud...on this thread alone we've got people from Europe telling us what our Bill of Rights really says and what was really intended back when it was written! How ludicrous is that?!

if I remember correctly, it was an american who started this discussion, and he didn't say a word about how he only wanted US citizens to reply.
The idea behind a discussion forum like this is that we get as much input from different points of views as possible, to widen our horizon, and look beyond our own field of vision, if you will.

I have never tried to tell you how you should live your life. I merely try to point out various issues that seem of concern to me, with regard to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the constitution.

me wrote:

...Even if you may think so, there is no fixed, forever-valid meaning of the words of the constitution.
I agree that some articles are basic provisions that should never be questioned, but others must be open to discussion and change. I appreciate when people know where they're coming from. But sometimes looking back prevents one from moving forward.

you know, I don't think the US constitution and the bill of rights are secrets whose meanings are only revealed to US citizens. Thus, I don't know why a US citizen would be better qualified to talk about the 2nd amendment than a person from the EU or some other country. Except, of course, you happen to be an expert on constitutional law, a judge, or one of the founding fathers. And somehow I doubt this is the case. 

also, on a side note:

FEOS wrote:

..And please don't tell me about how things work here...unless you've registered under a new name, you're still a bit of a wet-behind-the-ears newcomer. Which is painfully obvious from your posts here and in the temp forums.

Wailing our e-penis, are we ?
With all due respect, FEOS, even if date of registration and post count were valid criteria for judging the quality of one's post here, your 94 posts don't look too impressive either...talk about condescending....

OK. I apologize. I was having a bad day and was very frustrated with the condescending attitudes many foreigners take as a default with regard to the US. The tone of my post reflected that. I should have been more circumspect in my wording.

mikkel wrote:

The same concept applies, really. If foreigners can't criticise what's being done on the US constitution or the US Bill of Rights, why should Americans be able to criticise what's being done abroad? It's not like the US constitution has ever kept American presidents from circumventing it through legislation to gain more power under false pretext, and this unconstitutional legislation has most definitely affected foreigners.

Again, if the internal policies of a given country affect another (such as in human rights violations or potential dictatorships), then absolutely criticism from outside is appropriate. When an internal policy has nothing whatsoever to do with another country, I simply don't understand the need for someone from outside to even give a shit, much less feel the need to weigh in with their opinion. But I suppose that's a difference in attitude between the US and EU.

mikkel wrote:

Personally I think the engaged foreigner has more insight into the way the US runs bureaucratically than your average high school kid. The US is a place of more than 300.000.000 contrasting opinions, and if you were to yield to every one of them, you couldn't form an opinion for the life of you.

I also don't think that your average American has more insight into what was intended with the Bill of Rights than an informed foreigner. It's a matter of interpretation, of course, and it -is- a 250 year old document. I think it takes study to understand, not just national ties.

Unless that foreigner has taken at least one course on US government/civics in the course of their grade/high school (like US children do), then you'd be wrong. Then there's the difference between being academically informed (EU and US) and experientially informed (US).

mikkel wrote:

Well, if you had 10 people from the UK supporting your interpretation, and 10 people from the UK disagreeing with it, I'm pretty sure no one would dismiss any well-researched input that you have. A researched opinion is always qualified.

Valid point.

B.Schuss wrote:

if I remember correctly, it was an american who started this discussion, and he didn't say a word about how he only wanted US citizens to reply.
The idea behind a discussion forum like this is that we get as much input from different points of views as possible, to widen our horizon, and look beyond our own field of vision, if you will.

I have never tried to tell you how you should live your life. I merely try to point out various issues that seem of concern to me, with regard to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the constitution.

I agree with your first points. If only more people on here took the bolded portion to heart...

As to your second point: What I don't understand is why you even care about interpretations of our 2nd Amendment. It has zero bearing on your life and the lives of your countrymen and fellow Europeans. I don't believe it is taught in any of your schools prior to University...yet you are all informed enough on the topic to discount out of hand the opinions of US citizens on the same topic?

B.Schuus wrote:

you know, I don't think the US constitution and the bill of rights are secrets whose meanings are only revealed to US citizens. Thus, I don't know why a US citizen would be better qualified to talk about the 2nd amendment than a person from the EU or some other country. Except, of course, you happen to be an expert on constitutional law, a judge, or one of the founding fathers. And somehow I doubt this is the case.  wink

As to the average US citizen being better qualified...do EU children take US government/civics classes during school, at any level below University? If so, then they are just as academically qualified as the average US citizen. But then, that doesn't take into account the experience the average US citizen has just from living here, watching our news, reading our papers, etc. Have you done all those things as well for your entire life...watching US news, reading US papers, living in US cities? I somehow doubt that is the case.

You are no more qualified to talk about the US 2nd Amendment than I am qualified to talk about any part of German domestic law. That's why, in my previous posts (since you apparently went back and read every one of them), you won't find me commenting on other countries' internal policies unless I have specific experience with them. And believe me, if I were constantly spouting off about your country's policies, telling you what your country's policies really mean, and discounting what you have to say based on your first-hand experience living in your own country...you'd get a bit frustrated too, don't you think? First-hand experience trumps purely academic experience every single time, regardless of topic.

B.Schuss wrote:

Wailing our e-penis, are we ? wink
With all due respect, FEOS, even if date of registration and post count were valid criteria for judging the quality of one's post here, your 94 posts don't look too impressive either...talk about condescending....

Don't see why you took my post to Dilbert as a shot at you. He and I had a running fight on the temp forums and he was starting his crap up again. Probably more appropriate for a PM, but again...a bad day for me (as stated previously).

As to "condescending"...are you the pot or the kettle? I would argue that my posts have been, in general, well developed, and based on the comments I have received in PM, karma, and post responses, well received and helpful to the discussion at hand.

But I suppose no one is allowed to have a bad day and go on a rant once in a while in your book?

PureFodder wrote:

Sudan, it's illegal to call a teddy bear Muhammed. - A law that doesn't effect anyone here, yet the debate goes on
Saudi Arabia, law says you can get lashes for being a woman in the company of an unrelated man. - A law that doesn't effect anyone here, yet the debate goes on.
North Korea, Illegal phone thingy that resulted in a bloke being executed. - A law that doesn't effect anyone here, yet the debate goes on.
China, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Russia are just a few of the countries about which domestic laws have been discussed on this forum.

We can and do discuss the domestic legal situation of countries that we don't live in. This isn't just a US thing.

Oh, and the people that wrote the Bill of rights spent a lot more of their life prior to writing the thing being British than they did being American, hence British people are in at least as good if not better position to interpret what the founding fathers thought about Americas Bill of rights when it was written than Americans are.

I specifically took those types of issues into account in my post when I discussed internal policies that result in human rights violations. All those qualify as such. I don't recall us once discussing gun ownership in any countries and how good/bad those countries' founding documents were based on that single topic. Nor do I recall anyone from any of those countries weighing in on the actual situation and context within their country regarding any of those discussions (with the exception of Israel/Palestine). So, again...what was your point with regard to what I said?

And just how does the fact that the Founding Fathers were more British than American at the time of the writing of the Constitution/Bill of Rights mean that modern day Brits are "in at least as good if not better position to interpret" the documents? So, Brits 231 years later are better equipped to interpret our Constitution than people who have studied it formally at least once or twice in school? Do you take classes in your grade/high schools on the US constitution and government?